Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-06-14

Commons this evening resamed debate
on the C0ereion Bill. t4ksnR up the firth
claws. Which deals With the rroe.aiuins
Of districts.
Henry FowlsF, Liberal. proposed 90
an anerdment that the proclAmati1ns
be made 6y order Of q PFivy council. In
stsad Of by the Ylesroy. he arRed that
ehsngs Of such iEp0rtance a. the PRO-
claiming Of districts should be made BY
an Imperial instead Of sn Irish sxeen.
tive.
Mr.. Balfour, Chief SsorsAary for Ire
lard, declined 10 scceps the amend
ment. He reminded the House thai the
government collectively vas responsible
for every aef Of the Irish executive
of6ceTs.
Hsaly. Clancy and DlIlan. National
lists, successively supported the amend
meat.
Gladstone suggested that members
should not spend any more time. which
vas short, st their command. in futile
discussion. tt would be better, be said,
10 employ the reFnasainR time in dis
cussi1g weiGhty points.
Smith said be vas anxious 30 allow
sufficient time for diseuszien of the sub
stansial questions and hoped the oppo-
sition would assist the Government
in this direction
Mr.. Fowler offered to vithdFaW his
amendment.
Mr.. Dillou protested. He declined 30
take adv;es from the Government IS 10
what amendments should Be diseased
in the miserable period lefs 10 the Par
neliites to contest the measure.
-. H.
stone had not meant 10 suggest that the
opposition assist in limiting the debate
IN accordance With the GovernHAnts
ideas. The opinion OF the Parneiiites
upon the relative importance Of the
amendments deserved more attention
than the opiniOns Of the English mem
berF.
The amendment was put to q divisios
and rejected. 235 to l67.
Mr.. Doherty moved an a. andment
that the proclanations be issued only
IN the report Of the Judge OF the High
COarf, afteF local inquiry.
Mr.. Holmes. the Irish Attorney Gen
eRAl, opposed the amendment on the
ground that il vas not advisable to re-
move any responsibility from the exec
utive OF local inquiry. He said that be
would be valusless because the JadRe
would have no paver to take evidence
on oath.
Clancy said that the Government
would have been more candid II they
had given as a reason for their opposi-
ton to the amendment their desire 70
retain for political purposes the power
OF Proclaiming districts,
The amendment Was rejected By
vote Of 202 to 126.
Mr.. Shsw-Lsfeyre moved an amend
ment limiting the authority Of the Vice
roy in prsclaiming TO the districts
where il might be necessary for the
prevention of crime and outrage. he
appealed to the Government TO asseEt
to the alteration, which be said would
bring the cause to accord with the set
of 1882
Sir Il. Z. Webster, Attorney General,
said that il was refreshing TO hear Shaw
LsfevEe defending the act OF 1882. The
Government, be sdded, could not accept
the proposal, the object Of the bill being
to punish the authors as well as to pre-
vent the commission Of crime. The
amendment would hamper the opera
tion Of the measure.
Mr. Morley said be had never heard
q more ladicrous reason given for the
omission Of an important Limitation.
IL showed that the real object OF the
bill was not the prevention of crime. bat
for the suppression Of political combl-
nations. Cheers
Mr.. BradlauRh suRRested d that 10 meet
the views Of the Goyernm Mt the words
''anti punishment" should be added TO
the amendment after words "pIeyen-
tion Of"
Mr.. Balfour announced that the Gov
eminent accepted the amendment With
Mr.. BFadlauRh's modification.